Gun rights advocates from all over the country are up in arms over what they consider a betrayal of their cause by the Gunslick Trap Club.

In the wake of Saturday's visit by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, letters from as far as Michigan, Missouri and Wyoming were submitted to this newspaper criticizing the club.

The writers maintain the Gunslick Trap Club was duped into helping Kerry project a pro-gun image, even though he has a history of supporting what they consider infringements on gun rights.

"John Kerry is an extremist anti-gun advocate who, given the chance, would outlaw the civilian ownership of all guns, including even toy plastic 'cowboy type' guns. This is his history," a writer from Missouri writes. "Furthermore, he is an anti-hunting extremist and supports the goals of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)."

Ken Bethke, a club board member and former president, said he had not heard any feedback as of early this week, either from club members or from other gun rights advocates.

"I'm certainly not going to be surprised if I hear something," he said. "There's going to be some people who think we shouldn't have" allowed the Kerry event on club grounds.

After being asked to host the Kerry campaign event by U.S. Rep. Ron Kind's brother, club member Jack Schultz sought Bethke's blessing. Bethke said he figured the event would be good publicity for the club and for the sport of trap shooting in general, and so and gave the event a thumbs-up.

"I'm not even a Kerry supporter. That had no bearing on my thoughts," Bethke said. "If it had been Bush, I would have said the same thing. It's a public club. We don't have a sign at the entrance that says 'No Democrats
allowed.' "

Schultz, who is a Democrat and a member of the National Rifle Association, said the writers are misrepresenting Kerry.

Club member Terry Herbst, who let Kerry use his shotgun during Saturday's event and sold the Massachusetts senator a club membership, said he thought it was absurd to characterize Kerry as anti-gun.

"If he would have been anti-gun, why would he be out picking up a gun and shooting," he said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Read about some betrayal in Wisconsin" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Unisaw

July 9, 2004, 12:02 PM

I'm going to do my best to keep it on The High Road, but Schultz is a complete idiot. With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

R.H. Lee

July 9, 2004, 12:19 PM

Schultz said he shares Kerry's view that it is not an undue restriction of rights to keep people from owning assault rifles

".......the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, however a ban on assault rifles shall not be considered and undue restriction of rights"

??????? Is that what the 2nd says?

dsmith

July 9, 2004, 12:22 PM

Many (not all, obviously) of the "golf with shotguns" types do not approve of those of us
who prefer to shoot pistols and black rifles and full auto, etc and see our pastimes as
less wholesome than theirs. When confronting these sorts,resist the urge to cuss them
out or slap them around. Use sweet reason instead.

If that fails, _then_ you can slap them around.

boofus

July 9, 2004, 12:39 PM

If those over under totin hypocrites support efforts to ban my evil black guns. Rest assured I will work to get their sporting clay and deer hunting rifles banned as well. :cuss:

Hmmm. :confused: So his justification for banning "assault weapons" is that no one needs a "machine gun or bazooka". How do those go together? Even some so-called gun people still don't get it. :banghead:

fletcher

July 9, 2004, 01:50 PM

Kerry told the press at the trap club Saturday he has no plans to propose new gun control measures

Now let's see him carry through with that. I can't believe nobody has called him out on this yet.

StopTheGrays

July 9, 2004, 04:04 PM

Kerry told the press at the trap club Saturday he has no plans to propose new gun control measures

No, he will just sign them. :fire:

Monkeyleg

July 9, 2004, 07:59 PM

That part of the state is almost 100% hunters. Go to a gun show there and you'll see nothing but camouflage. Even the baby buggy is camouflage.

These guys think that because every politician like Kerry who comes down the pike has supported the "rights of hunters and sportsmen," their guns aren't in jeopardy. And, to be blunt, they don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us.

We saw this during the CCW effort months back. That area along the Mississippi was the hardest for our gun show volunteers to work.

Seldom was arguing with them about concealed carry worth the time. In fact, some of those guys could get really angry if a volunteer tried to reason with them. If looks could kill, there was one guy in particular I remember wanted me dead.

So, there's our "brethren." :rolleyes:

Gray Peterson

July 9, 2004, 10:12 PM

Hopefully this year and next year will bring CCW to Wisconsin. Like you said, you have to get the carrot and stick approach with those types.

mrapathy2000

July 10, 2004, 12:21 AM

I need to find on video tape another senator from massachusets and put together some stats on kerry's voting record.

see how well those hunters respond to senator(hicup)Kennedy. when he is making his half drunk wild rant bout 30-30 hunting and target ammo being cop killing ammo used in nothing but sniper rifles and assault weapons.

kerry is left of ted kennedy.

Don of Kalifornia

July 10, 2004, 11:36 AM

This Mr. Schultz appears to be too stupid to even handle firearms. His Machine gun and Bazooka statement show how morally decayed he and most liberals really are.

Bazookas are classified as "destructive devices" and Machine Guns are controled under the 1934 NFA. What do either have to do with so called "assault weapons"?

I've gotten to the point that I feel most hunters and the shotgun crowd, are as big a danger to the Second Ammendment as people like John F***ing Kerry, John "Seal Your Money" Edwards, and Sarah Brady.

Monkeyleg

July 10, 2004, 07:21 PM

Apathy among hunters was the #1 reason why we lost concealed carry this year. We've had a great number of pro-gun bills get passed in the last eight or nine years, all with heavy support from hunters.

I've given the authors of our CCW bill some suggestions on how to get the hunters behind the bill, and they seem to like the ideas.

Far too many trap shooters are not involved in other shooting activities, and just don't care. There's an elitist mentality that leaves me completely befuddled.

Bubbles

July 10, 2004, 08:20 PM

Unfortunately many "sport" shooters won't believe there's is a serious threat to their RKBA until the hoplophobes start screaming that "sniper rifles" (bolt-actions) and "riot guns" (pump shotguns) should be banned.

mrapathy2000

July 10, 2004, 08:42 PM

monkeyleg your preaching to the choir. I live in Iowa and was rooting for ccw in wisconsin. anything to piss off and offset the lunacy of Illinois and show that crazy state responcible law abiding citizens can have firearms and it can decrease crime without increase in vigilantism.

though your guys next attempt in wisconsin will be able to point out two states when it comes to ccw. Missouri and Ohio.

you guys in wisconsin work on ccw in Iowa I would like to try and get class3 weapons for private citizens. prohibited in iowa via ban on offensive weapons law and another law which says which group(class) of citizens can get them. despite having a constitution that says Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

doubt it will happen while we have vilsack in the governor chair here in Iowa.

I hope someone who knows the guy prints that out and saves it, so when Kerry signs a ban on semi-auto shotguns starts locking up people with "high-powered sniper rifles" that they can show it to him.

Monkeyleg

July 11, 2004, 07:28 PM

mrapathy2000, even though full-autos are legal here, that doesn't necessarily mean you can get a Form 4 signed.

Back in 1988 I bought a Thompson. The very next year the mayor of Milwaukee put pressure on the sheriff, the DA, the police chief and every other person who could sign Form 4's to stop. I've read some posts here on THR that have said there's a way around a chief law enforcement officer refusing to sign the Form 4's, but haven't heard of it happening in reality.

Essentially, the sheriff (or whoever) is refusing to follow the law, and there's nothing you can do about it.

As for concealed carry, we'll get it. If we see turncoat Representative Gary Sherman defeated this fall, and change a couple of other seats, I think we'll have it. If not, we'll have it in 2007 when Governor Doyle is gone.

cracked butt

July 12, 2004, 01:09 PM

Mr. Shultz isn't anti-gun, so long as its his guns that aren't taken away. In his perfect world, only people who can afford $3000 break action shotguns should be priviledged to take part in such gentrified sports as Skeet, and Trap, and he would like to shoot Sporting clays without being surrounded by the riffraff with pump and semiauto shotguns. As for evil black rifles and handguns, only the 'dirty people' use those and it would make him feel abit safer to have those banned.

To Mr. Shultz, Kerry has the perfect stance on gun control.

Ransom

July 12, 2004, 01:21 PM

"John Kerry is an extremist anti-gun advocate who, given the chance, would outlaw the civilian ownership of all guns, including even toy plastic 'cowboy type' guns. This is his history," a writer from Missouri writes. "Furthermore, he is an anti-hunting extremist and supports the goals of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)."

Is there anything that backs this up at all? I can understand not liking the man but this seems to be blatantly making things up.

cracked butt

July 12, 2004, 01:22 PM

Is there anything that backs this up at all? I can understand not liking the man but this seems to be blatantly making things up.

His voting record in the senate.

Ransom

July 12, 2004, 01:23 PM

His voting record in the senate.

Such as? I'm curious where he has voted to make all guns illegal and outlaw hunting...

DonP

July 12, 2004, 04:10 PM

I like shooting trap and skeet and yes, some of the people there do have the same kind of condescending attitudes that some fly fishermen have towards lowly "bobber" fisherman that actually eat what we catch sometimes. How primitive we are to them.

Down here in Illinois some of them are starting to wake up to the fact that while the gun grabbers aren't trying to take away their $2.000 and up O/U (yet anyway), they are refusing to grant or renew any gun club permits.

The situation in Naperville is a great example. Park district gun club, been around for years and all of a sudden the tree huggers, backed by the gun grabbers, are trying to shut it down and will probably succeed.

A lot of the elitist O/U types still aren't getting it because they think they are far above our petty fray and these people would never dare bother them. They don't understand that they will be the last to get the order to surrender their guns when the confiscations begin.

Oh yeah, one more thing, Schultz is an idiot, too stupid to see beyond the world of his most likely lily white gated community and should under no circumstances be allowed to reproduce more of his kind. But that's just my crass black rifle, pistol shooting, pro CCW opinion you realize.

rock jock

July 12, 2004, 04:25 PM

Such as? I'm curious where he has voted to make all guns illegal and outlaw hunting...
From the following website:
http://www.nraila.org/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=136

For his long history of anti-gun rights votes and positions, he consistently receives a 100-percent rating from the Brady Campaign (Handgun Control Inc.), the American Bar Association`s Special Committee on Gun Violence and from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns). All of these groups deny the existence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and some are actively using the courts in an attempt to destroy Americans` Second Amendment freedoms.

On issues directly affecting Second Amendment rights, Kerry has voted 51 of 55 times against you on the floor of the Senate. For all we`ve read lately about how enemies of the Second Amendment are shying away from the "gun control" issue in this election year, a series of votes in the U.S. Senate in March changed all that, with Kerry eagerly taking center stage.

In working to sabotage S.1805--the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of predatory lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry--Kerry voted to extend the Clinton gun ban on semi-autos, to make now-legal private gun sales at gun shows criminal acts, and voted to support Ted Kennedy`s ammunition ban, which would have prohibited most centerfire hunting rounds.Where Kerry says he "will defend hunting rights," the accolades of "animal rights" activists tell a different story.

The Humane Society of the United States and Fund for Animals--both rabidly anti-hunting--gave John Kerry a 100 percent mark for the first session of the current Congress. They cited John Kerry as among Senators who have "compiled consistently excellent voting records on animal issues . . ." and who "have emerged as animal protection leaders . . . Kerry has cosponsored almost every piece of animal protection legislation . . . introduced on behalf of animals."

Kerry is the poster boy for a secret scheme hatched by billionaire Andrew McKelvey`s Americans for Gun Safety, (AGS) whereby anti-gun rights Democratic candidates cloak themselves in rhetorical camouflage, falsely claiming to embrace the Second Amendment and trying to con hunters into believing that their rights are somehow separate from those of other American gun owners.

Don`t take my word for it. Here`s what AGS wrote in its blueprint for "Taking Back the Second Amendment," prepared last year for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Kerry is following all the dots.

It is a battle plan for deceit that counsels anti-gun rights candidates: "The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the rhetoric they employ." (Emphasis added.) In other words, it`s not how you vote, but what you say.

Ransom

July 12, 2004, 05:31 PM

That really doesnt give much in the way of specifics. It makes way too many leaps to be taken seriously. Kerry voted in favor of gun control bills therefore he is in favor of taking away all guns or Kerry voted in favor of "animal issues" so he is in favor of outlawing hunting. What the hell?

That whole thing pretty much goes on nothing more than a voting record. Voting yes or no on a bill can be influenced on many different things so its not an accurate portayal of a persons beliefs. Yes, Kerry is for some gun control like the AWB and closing the gunshow "loophole" but that hardly makes him in favor of outlawing all firearms and hunting. Thats a harsh thing to saddle him with when there isnt any evidence that he feels that way.

That whole article is a tad too kneejerk for me. I'd much rather see something based on Kerry's own words or actions rather than a connect the dots form of faux logic.

rock jock

July 12, 2004, 05:51 PM

That really doesnt give much in the way of specifics. It makes way too many leaps to be taken seriously. Kerry voted in favor of gun control bills therefore he is in favor of taking away all guns or Kerry voted in favor of "animal issues" so he is in favor of outlawing hunting. What the hell?
Ransom,
To my knowledge, there has never been legislation introduced during Kerry's term that sought outright "to ban all civilian ownership of firearms". So, what you are looking for doesn't exist. However, you can ascertain a politician's views and political philosophy from their voting records. In Kerry's case, he has voted consistently to restrict gun rights every time he has had that opportinuty. He has been in lockstep with the VCP and every other anti-RKBA organization on every gun issue. It is not faux logic to draw a conclusion based on solid references. In fact, it is perfectly logical to do so. You may have never read that A=C, but if A=B, and B=C........well, you get the idea.

benewton

July 12, 2004, 05:54 PM

"I'd much rather see something based on Kerry's own words or actions rather than a connect the dots form of faux logic."

It's not really all that hard, even if you don't live next to the people's republic of Taxachusetts, to figure out how this game would be played.

Ransom

July 12, 2004, 06:22 PM

Ransom,
To my knowledge, there has never been legislation introduced during Kerry's term that sought outright "to ban all civilian ownership of firearms". So, what you are looking for doesn't exist. However, you can ascertain a politician's views and political philosophy from their voting records. In Kerry's case, he has voted consistently to restrict gun rights every time he has had that opportinuty. He has been in lockstep with the VCP and every other anti-RKBA organization on every gun issue. It is not faux logic to draw a conclusion based on solid references. In fact, it is perfectly logical to do so. You may have never read that A=C, but if A=B, and B=C........well, you get the idea.

While this is true you can also paint a completely false picture of someone using their voting record as well. Example: A bill comes up giving more money to the human society. Tacked on is a law that makes it a crime to be black. Vote no and you hate kittens and puppies. Voting isnt always a true case.

Its best to go based on what he has said himself, rather than trying to interpret and entire philosophy from a "yes" or "no".

Kerry has voted in favor of the AWG and things like that but thats hardly "wanting to outlaw all firearms". The man himself is a gun owner and a hunter. Trying to paint him as a gun hating lunatic is just plain dishonest no matter how you slice it.

Besides, Bush is in favor of the AWB as well. Using some of the same logic you could claim he wants to get rid of all firearms and is cahoots with the anti gun zealots as well. In fact, I think when it comes to firearms Bush and Kerry are pretty much one the exact same level.

benewton

July 12, 2004, 06:33 PM

Ransom:

Fair enough, since they don't read the bills they vote on, how could I be expected to?

But we do have advocates, on both sides, who do.

The democratic slate rates where with the antis?

And where with the progunners?

Contrary to the left wing's wishes, liberal is a perjorative term for those of us who have to pay the bill, while gaining no benefits beyond the requirement to pay even more, for less, in the future.

Monkeyleg

July 12, 2004, 07:31 PM

Ransom, in the middle of the Democrat primary, Kerry left the campaign trail on the single most important day--Super Tuesday--to make one of his rare appearances in the Senate. He was there to vote for Feinstein's renewal of the AW ban, and for Kennedy's bill, which would have enabled the BATFE to ban certain centerfire ammo.

He's voted with Senator "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" Feinstein at every turn. He's voted for every anti-gun bill that's come down the pike in the last twenty years.

Josh Sugarman and the other anti's have stated publicly their intent to disarm America, and Kerry has voted the anti's way every time.

You don't have to play "connect the dots" with Kerry. The pattern is so clear that only the blind can't see it.

Hack

July 12, 2004, 08:04 PM

Who cares what the man is like underneath when he votes only to damage America further?
"Poor Lurch, it's not really his fault he voted that way".
That stuff don't wash.

Ransom

July 12, 2004, 08:05 PM

He believes in some of the things the anti gun groups have said. Does that mean he believes everything? Using the fact that he is for the AWB to assume things about him you dont honestly know is wrong. Dont saddle him with the belief that he wants to "ban all firearms and outlaw hunting" when I doubt he has said or voted for anything even remotely close to that.

Keep in mind, Bush himself supports the AWB so he agrees with Feinstein. By this same assumption logic you can argue that Bush wants to ban all firearms.

Stick with the facts. He supports the AWB and wants to intrduce background checks to gun shows and probably supports trigger locks and so forth. Dislike him on those points, dont make up things that arent true. Thats just wrong no matter what side of the fence you are on.

Ransom

July 12, 2004, 08:21 PM

An interesting tidbit, that 100% rating from the Brady group covers 21 votes that they agreed on. Some of them had nothing to do with gun control but were things like Campaign Finance Reform and an urban gun buyback program. The rest are a bunch of the same stuff over and over such as waiting periods, backgroun checks, and crap with the AWB.

So some of the claims about him being Bradys bitch are a little out of context.

jfh

July 12, 2004, 08:36 PM

defending Kerry's record so vociferously, with some of the most tenuous of rationalizations?

Anyone who flew in to vote for the mfr's liability bill and the related AWB extension is a gun-grabber, given the logic of the AWB. (If you don't understand that logic, do a search here, on THR and read some posts.

The man is clearly dangerous to any of us who view the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. He is fully aligned with Kennedy--and past him, actually, in his gun-control voting record. He is now one of the "big four" of Senators who want to tax, register, and yes, confiscate the public's firearms.

And those issues can stand by themselves, without any reference to his 'liberal' politics. He stands for what political liberalism has become--the refuge of tyrants. I will stop this rant, less the moderator move it to the Roundtable--but I truly do NOT understand what there is to defend about Kerry's position on firearms.

Or are you one of those Democrats who thinks your gun-control brethren don't really mean what they do?

Hack

July 12, 2004, 08:37 PM

When someone claims to have voted for the war before voting against it, his family having an suv but not him, inferring that he voted to end the marriage penalty tax when in reality he voted against ending it, not supporting the death penalty for terrorists when it suited him but supporting it when it did suit him.
And my personal favorite.
Throwing away medals protesting the war and justifying it by saying they were only ribbons when it came back to bite him. Remember that one?
I truly hope that one, above all, bites him HARD.

What he believes in is subject to whim and always what's convenient for him at the moment.
I agree that we should stick to the facts.

mrapathy2000

July 12, 2004, 08:49 PM

anyone else getting the fealing people from DU are coming here to toy

Ransom

July 12, 2004, 08:57 PM

Anyone who flew in to vote for the mfr's liability bill and the related AWB extension is a gun-grabber, given the logic of the AWB. (If you don't understand that logic, do a search here, on THR and read some posts.

George W. Bush supports the AWB, does that make him a gun-grabber?

For the record I'm against all gun control. I hate the AWB just as much as you all. The difference is I also hate when people make assumptions based on no facts. Bush and Kerry have practicly the same views on gun control but one is labeled an evil gun grabber and the other gets a pass. Thats crap.

Hack

July 12, 2004, 09:03 PM

Defending Lurch. Doesn't matter how or by saying what.
As long as Lurch loses some of the smell anything's in play.
Kinda like the way they talk to our kids.

DonP

July 12, 2004, 09:13 PM

"George W. Bush supports the AWB, does that make him a gun-grabber?"

If he ever actually signs an AWB bill, yes it does.

But what he very carefully said was, "if an extension of the current assault weapons ban reaches my desk, I will sign it". Try and find me any speeches or policy papers he has had put together in support of the AWB.

There is a slim to none chance of that happening with a Republican controlled House so it was ane asy promise to make with a low level of risk for Pissing off his base.

As previously noted, Kerry made one of his very few Senate votes for renewing and expanding the AWB then proudly posed for photos with Schumer, Feinstein and Kennedy following the vote.

Sorry, there is no way you can twist his voting record to make him even vaguely pro-second. If you love his social programs, (I'm sure he must have some to propose beyond evict GWB), then vote for him ... and say good-bye to your second amendment rights via executvie orders and a far left Supreme Court interpreting the constitution.

Anyone that gets a 100 rating from Brady will never get my vote. If Bush is dumb enough to let the AWB reach his desk and signs it, he won't either. If the AWB dies, then Bush gets my vote. I guess I'm just too simple to understand the "Subtle Nuances" of Kerry's anti-gun voting record.

GEM

July 12, 2004, 10:41 PM

Bush is not a good proactive RKBA president. I know GOPites go into twists to try to portray as such. He is clearly the lesser of two evils though on gun issues.

I'm sure Kerry would be proactive in passing new gun legislation. The gun show 'loophole' has been shown to be a very minor issue if one really understands illegal gun traffic. It is just a political totem as is the AWB.

Since Kerry is pro both, it demonstrates that he (unfortunately like Bush) don't understand the issue.

Boats

July 12, 2004, 11:09 PM

What do they say? A picture is worth a thousand words? So be it:

http://home.comcast.net/~boatssecond/Resources/fourhorsemen.jpg

END OF DISCUSSION. sKERRY AIN'T DOING ANY MISUNDERSTOOD FOOTSIE WITH THE THREE WORST ANTIGUNNERS IN THE SENATE.

No one flukes their way into a simultaneous career "F" from the NRA and into a 100 score from the Bradys.

I'd also note that sKerry BORROWED his shotgun for his photo op. If he really owned one, he could keep it on his chartered freakin' campaign plane and take it with him to kill birds and clays to fool the morons.

cracked butt

July 13, 2004, 12:43 AM

Ransom,

The very reason why we elect congressmen is to make laws and vote on laws. A Congresscritter's voting record is the only thing you can judge them on at the end of the day. That being said, if it walks like a duck...

Monkeyleg

July 13, 2004, 01:35 AM

Using the "T" word may get me a moderator reprimand, but I've been looking at the dates that the Kerry supporters joined, the number of their posts on the forum, and on which topics they post.

There can't be any argument as to their intentions. As cracked butt said, if it walks like a duck...

When the anti-gunners cannot succeed legislatively, when their lawsuits are laughed out of court, when their "million mom marches" draw only a few hundred, when the Brady Bunch and the Million Mom March have to save pennies by sharing office space...you know they're losing.

When they have to send surrogates here to try to Divide and Conquer, well, things are probably even worse.

However, if Kerry succeeds in getting in, the Clinton years will look like a pillow fight. Bill Clinton didn't believe in the necessity of the AW ban, or the Brady Law, or any of the other shams we had to endure. Bill Clinton only cared about himself.

John F. Kerry, though, believes all of this. He's a True Believer, and that makes him more dangerous than Bill Clinton.

rock jock

July 13, 2004, 06:55 PM

By this same assumption logic you can argue that Bush wants to ban all firearms.
Ransom, You are purposely avoiding using any logic. Zero. Nada. Look at the facts:

- As Governor of Texas, Bush championed and signed into law the first shall-issue system in the state's history, and the first one that allowed most citizens to carry legally for the first time in almost 150 years
- Under Bush's administration, no gun-control measures have been signed into law
- Bush's personal choice for AG has declared that RKBA is an individual right. This is the first such admission by the nation's highest LEO in history (AFAIK)
- The Bush administration has openly defied the UN call for a worldwide ban on personal RKBA

- Kerry, OTOH, has voted in favor of EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION during his tenure. Every one, without exception.
- Kerry is given a 100% rating by the gun-grabbers.

You cannot objectively think for a minute that Kerry is anything but a total gun-grabber.

jfh

July 13, 2004, 07:03 PM

it looks like Ransom did his work and is gone. It's been well over 24 hours since he posted. Pretty much like Harry Truman said, isn't it?

At least until the next chance to troll....

rock jock

July 13, 2004, 07:06 PM

You're right. Waste of time on my part.

Bartholomew Roberts

July 13, 2004, 07:11 PM

Bush and Kerry have practicly the same views on gun control but one is labeled an evil gun grabber and the other gets a pass.

Ransom, that is simply not true. Here is what Bush has done for gun owners during his term.

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US (http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/calendar/2001UN/confnews/change_tone.htm)

Kerry supports the UN in its effort to disarm gun owners in the U.S.

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_020507.html) - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

Kerry supports "collective rights" interpretation saying only the organized militia is protected by the Second Amendment

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

Kerry opposed Ashcroft and sought to keep data even longer.

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day (http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/press/release.asp?Record=368) - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

7. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401270928.asp) that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

Opposed by Kerry.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

Kerry voted for background checks and semi-auto ban, no preemption

10. Partially repeals Clinton ban on import of some semi-auto firearm parts (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=599575#post599575) instituted in Summer of 2000 to allow import of parts for repair purposes.

Think Kerry would support that? His buddy Dianne was just on the Senate floor complaining about it today.

Kerry voted on March 2, 2004 to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition in America. Is that anti-gun and anti-hunting enough to satisfy your criteria?

Nobody is giving Bush a pass here; Kerry earned his reputation as a gun grabber with 100% support of every piece of Brady Campaign legislation introduced since 1991.

Ransom

July 13, 2004, 07:50 PM

Just a quick disclaimer: I disagree with John Kerry on all his guncontrol opinions. I'm just agianst people using made up facts against the man.

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

Supported and started by Democrats.

While democrates might have supported this Kerry did not and voted against the gun buybacks.

Kerry voted on March 2, 2004 to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition in America. Is that anti-gun and anti-hunting enough to satisfy your criteria?

"To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor."

Just out of curiosity how does this "ban all centerfire rifle ammunition in America"?

The point I've been making this entire thread is this: "Kerry wants to ban all firearms and outlaw hunting" is a lie. Plain and simple. Saying "Well he voted for every gun control bill" doesnt mean you can automatically assume he believes everything the Bradys believe. The man himself is a hunter and a gun owner. He may support some crappy gun control ideas but he doesnt support confiscating all firearms and outlawing hunting.

Kneejerk reactions and leaps of logic to justify a lie are wrong no matter what. When John Kerry votes for a bill that outlaws all firearms and hunting then you can make that claim, until then its unfounded and simply trying to smear the man just because you dont agree with him.

Dislike him on actual issues not made up issues.

jfh

July 13, 2004, 08:02 PM

defending Kerry's record so vociferously, with some of the most tenuous of rationalizations.

As for your comment about how does [Kerry's vote to support the AWB and related amendedments]...."ban all centerfire rifle ammunition in America"?, read the link provided immediately above.

It seems you would cut him far more slack for some arcane reasons, while expecting the rest of us to not reasonably predict his voting behavior based on his voting history.

So what is it that you like about the man? Are you a political liberal / Democrat who thinks he can be pro 2nd Amendment and not take the rest of the baggage--the baggage of what your party represents in its platform?

Ransom

July 13, 2004, 08:17 PM

No, I'm conservative. I'm just agianst kneejerk reactions including those that lead someone to make assumptions about people. Its wrong when gun control nuts do it and its wrong with this form does it.

But you can believe what you guys what. I've stated my opinion.

Monkeyleg

July 14, 2004, 12:51 AM

"Its wrong when gun control nuts do it and its wrong with this form does it."

What part of "100% rating by the Brady Bunch" don't you understand? John Kerry has a better anti-gun record than Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Hillary combined. The only anti-gunners who can beat him on that score are Schumer, Feinstein, and maybe Barbara Boxer. And even then it's close.

I'm calling a spade a spade. Give us links to your posts on other gun forums prior to the beginning of this election cycle that prove that you're actually pro-gun. Otherwise, go Cheney yourself.

mrapathy2000

July 14, 2004, 01:08 AM

I am seeing more and more trolls on THR lately. my suggestion is dont feed the troll.

if he is not a troll then is just plain ignorant. presented you will all sorts of info feal free to provide info showing contrary you will not find anything of substance to counter what other have posted so far.

here check out this video
http://www.ccrkba.org/video/demguns.wmv

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 10:32 AM

While democrates might have supported this Kerry did not and voted against the gun buybacks.

So out of ten different examples of where Bush and Kerry's supposedly "identical" gun policies differ, you can only refute one? And you aren't even right about the one you attempted...

Here is the 1999 HUD Appropriations bill vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00328). John Kerry voted "YES". This is the bill that authorizes gun buybacks.

Not only did Kerry vote yes on the final bill in 1999; but in 2001 Chucky Schumer tried to fund the buyback program again and added an amendment to give HUD $15 million for gun buybacks. After a motion was made to kill the amendment, Kerry voted NO (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00267) in an effort to keep the amendment alive.

"To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor."

Just out of curiosity how does this "ban all centerfire rifle ammunition in America"?

It bans all centerfire rifle ammunition in America by "expanding the definition of armor-piercing ammunition" to include any bullet capable of piercing standard police body armor. Since any centerfire rifle ammo is capable of this, they can all be banned at the discretion of the Attorney General under this bill.

But don't take my word for it, let's go direct to the bill's author:

" Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating. It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America."

Sen. Kennedy - Congressional Record, February 26, 2004 page S.1634

.30-30 would be one of the most common deer-hunting calibers in the U.S. It is not used in any semi-automatic "assault" weapons. John Kerry voted "YES" to ban centerfire rifle ammo.

The point I've been making this entire thread is this: "Kerry wants to ban all firearms and outlaw hunting" is a lie.

Is it? Do you have some secret insight into what Kerry wants? Personally, I can only judge by his actions what he wants to achieve and all of his actions are consistently (100%) anti-hunting and anti-gun ownership.

Plain and simple. Saying "Well he voted for every gun control bill" doesnt mean you can automatically assume he believes everything the Bradys believe.

So if he votes for every single thing the Brady Campaign supports from 1991-2004 and never opposes them on any issue (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?inds=42), we cannot automatically assume he believes what they believe?

The man himself is a hunter and a gun owner.

BS... the man is pretending to be a gun owner and hunter in order to try and avoid losing votes over the issue - the same votes that cost Al Gore the election.

Kneejerk reactions and leaps of logic to justify a lie are wrong no matter what.

You mean like claiming that Kerry did not support the HUD Appropriations bill authorizing gun buybacks?

Dislike him on actual issues not made up issues.

OK, I dislike him because of these issues:

Feinstein Assault Weapons Amendment (103rd Congress; 1993-11-17) Amendment to Senate Crime bill, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of 19 semi-automatic weapons by name and many more by description. Kerry voted YES

Metzenbaum Sunset Amendment (103rd Congress; 1993-11-19) Amendment sponsored by Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) to delete from the compromise Brady Bill language that would sunset the waiting period in five years. So even after the NICS system was operational and instant checks were possible you would STILL have to wait five days. Kerry voted YES.

Brady Bill (103rd Congress; 1993-11-20) - Kerry voted YES

Lautenberg Amendment to FY1997 Department of Defense Authorization (104th Congress; 1996-06-27) Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) offered an amendment that would have blocked the $76 million transfer of guns, ammunition, property, and cash to the CMP. During the debate, Senator Larry Craig (R-UT) moved to kill the amendment. Kerry voted NO.

(He voted to defund the CMP! But it is OK, he is a hunter and gunowner!)

Craig Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress; 1998-07-21) Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) offered an amendment that would require that gun stores have trigger locks in stock and available for sale. This Craig amendment vote was immediately prior to a stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment that would require that all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. The Craig amendment passed 72-28. Kerry voted NO.

Durbin/Chafee Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress; 1998-07-22) Senators John Chafee (R-RI) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) offered their "Child Access Prevention" legislation as an amendment. This legislation, often referred as "safe storage," requires adults to either store loaded guns in a place that is reasonably inaccessible to children or use a device to lock the gun. A motion to kill this amendment was made. Kerry voted NO.

Feinstein Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress; 1998-07-28) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) offered an amendment that would ban the importation and sale of normal capacity ammunition magazines (over ten rounds) that had previously been grandfathered in the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. A motion was made to kill the amendment. Kerry voted NO.

Feinstein Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress; 1999-05-13) - Feinstein offers to make you a criminal for transferring semi-automatic weapons or magazines with more than a ten round capacity to your children. A motion was made to kill this amendment. Kerry voted NO.

I could go on; but I think you get my point. Nobody here needs to make up stuff to prove John Kerry is anti-gun.

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 10:42 AM

I'm calling a spade a spade.

By assuming what the man believes. Which is wrong. Yes, he beleives in gun control, but that doesnt mean he believe in outlawing all firearms and hunting. If you want to believe that its your buisness, I'm just telling you you're wrong and would rather stereotype someone based on what he believes. shrug.

Give us links to your posts on other gun forums prior to the beginning of this election cycle that prove that you're actually pro-gun. Otherwise, go Cheney yourself.

:rolleyes:

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 10:46 AM

I could go on; but I think you get my point. Nobody here needs to make up stuff to prove John Kerry is anti-gun.

Saying he wants to outlaw all firearms and hunting is people making up things. Thats what I'm defending.

As far as he and Bush having similar views I was basing that on the fact that both support the AWB, which I consider the most oppressive and insane gun control law out there.

The point I'm making is saying simply because Kerry believe some of the things a group has done doesnt mean he believes all of them. If that makes me a troll then so be it.

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 12:57 PM

Saying he wants to outlaw all firearms and hunting is people making up things.

OK, then how about we say this - John Kerry has never voted against the interests of groups that have expressly supported banning all firearms from civilian ownership and eliminating hunting?

For even more fun examine John Kerry's own questionaire from Humane USA (http://www.humaneusa.org/2004_presidential/question/jkerry_2004.pdf).

WILL YOU SUPPORT THE INCLUSION OF BIRDS, RATS, AND MICE IN ANIMAL WELFARE ACT ENFORCEMENT? _X_ yes ___ no

WILL YOU SUPPORT ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT CANNED HUNTS? _X_ yes ___ no

WILL YOU SUPPORT STIPULATING THAT NO TAXPAYER FUNDS BE USED TO KILL WILDLIFE, OFTEN ON PUBLIC LANDS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRIVATE RANCHERS? _X_ yes ___ no (note: this is usually done with public funds because the law prohibits ranchers from taking game on public lands to protect their herds)

Rats and mice will now be subject to Animal Welfare Enforcement? How lunatic is that?

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 01:09 PM

OK, then how about we say this - John Kerry has never voted against the interests of groups that have expressly supported banning all firearms from civilian ownership and eliminating hunting?

Thats completely fine and the truth. However, making the leap from "John Kerry has never voted against this group" to "John Kerry believes everything this group believes" is dishonest. Its wrong to saddle him with that belief when he has done or said nothing to indicate it.

When Kerry publicly states or votes in favor of banning all firearms and outlawing hunting then that claim will be factual. Until then its just an assumption and shouldnt be used to bash the man.

greyhound

July 14, 2004, 01:20 PM

"If he would have been anti-gun, why would he be out picking up a gun and shooting," he said.

Easy - they know that blatant gun-grabbing is a big turn off at election time, so they do a couple photo ops, consistently mentioning hunting and the fact that no one needs a "machine gun":rolleyes: to hunt.

Therefore making the argument that supporting the 2A really means allowing people guns to hunt.

Anyone ever hear how John Kerry feels about CCW? Given the fact that shall issue is sweeping the US, I would wager he would say "its a state issue" to try to duck the question.

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 02:13 PM

When Kerry publicly states or votes in favor of banning all firearms and outlawing hunting then that claim will be factual. Until then its just an assumption and shouldnt be used to bash the man.

You are standing in a crowd. I walk up and begin kicking random people in the K-zone. Let's say I kick 21 before walking up to you. Until I kick you in the K-zone, it isn't factual is it? Any threat you percieve is just an assumption on your part about what I intend to do and shouldn't be used to bash me, right?

Yet strangely enough, most people with even meager survival instincts will make that assumption.

Here we have a politician who has ALWAYS voted with groups that wish to ban all firearms and eliminate hunting and yet you chide for assuming that this politician might well desire those things himself?

The man just told a constituency he supports extending animal welfare enforcement to birds, rats and mice; but until he actually tries to outlaw hunting we have no reason to be concerned that might be on his future agenda?

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 02:31 PM

Here we have a politician who has ALWAYS voted with groups that wish to ban all firearms and eliminate hunting and yet you chide for assuming that this politician might well desire those things himself?

He believes in the things put in front of him. He has also stated that he supports gun owning and hunting. Believe it or not a person can have an opinon in the middle and not either be 100% for or 100% against gun control. He believes in the AWB, he believes in various other crappy things, but he does not believe in outlawing firearms and hunting.

Saying "he voted on blah blah blah" simply means he believed in those things. It doesnt mean he automatically must believe in other things. Saying he does it just dishonest because he has said nor done anything to indicate he has.

This argument is going in ciricles. You keep saying "BUT HE ALWAYS VOTES FOR BRADY BILLS" Well that means he has believed in the bills that are put before him. This connect the dots predict the future crap is dumb, especially when THE MAN HIMSELF HAS STATED HIS OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.

But hey, who needs the truth when you can just make stuff up to smear someone?

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 04:21 PM

He believes in the things put in front of him. He has also stated that he supports gun owning and hunting.

And politicians are always honest eh? Or maybe he is just cautious about offending 50% of the voter base?

He believes in the AWB, he believes in various other crappy things, but he does not believe in outlawing firearms and hunting.

Well, I can't tell what he truly believes and I don't think you have that power either. All I know is that since 1991 he has received 100% approval ratings from groups that do support banning firearms and eliminating hunting. He has never voted against them.

Saying "he voted on blah blah blah" simply means he believed in those things. It doesnt mean he automatically must believe in other things. Saying he does it just dishonest because he has said nor done anything to indicate he has.

Dishonest? It isn't dishonest to surmise a man's future intentions by his past actions, it is sound judgement. Kerry hasn't done a damn thing to support the notion that he favors either gun ownership or hunting as he hasn't made one vote in Congress in support of either. Yet you've made that claim several times. How about showing me why I should believe Kerry supports gun ownership or hunting? A vote in Congress? Something a bit more substantial than "I shot pheasant in a PR stunt during an election year"?

This connect the dots predict the future crap is dumb, especially when THE MAN HIMSELF HAS STATED HIS OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.

Are you seriously trying to argue that using past votes to predict future behavior is dumb and there is no correlation there? Further, are you honestly suggesting that the fact that a politician has stated something that is clearly contrary to his actions is enough proof to override any concern his actions might have caused?

Nightfall

July 14, 2004, 04:28 PM

Schultz said he shares Kerry's view that it is not an undue restriction of rights to keep people from owning assault rifles.

"You don't need a machine gun or a bazooka in your house," Schultz said.Looks like somebody has been hanging out with Bill O'Reilly. :rolleyes: Nobody needs an AR-15 or a mag with more than 10 rounds, but Schultz's shotgun that's probably worth well into a 4 digit number... obviously that's just a life necessity! Hypocrite.
Club member Terry Herbst, who let Kerry use his shotgun during Saturday's event and sold the Massachusetts senator a club membership, said he thought it was absurd to characterize Kerry as anti-gun.

"If he would have been anti-gun, why would he be out picking up a gun and shooting," he said.If he's so pro-gun, and this is something he does so regularly, why does he have to borrow somebody else's gun just to have something to shoot with? :rolleyes:

My enemies, I can handle. It's my "allies" I need help with! :banghead:

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 04:34 PM

Are you seriously trying to argue that using past votes to predict future behavior is dumb and there is no correlation there?

And are you honestly saying a person cant have an opinion that isnt either 100% for or 100% against gun control?

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 05:02 PM

And are you honestly saying a person cant have an opinion that isnt either 100% for or 100% against gun control?

Where have I said anything remotely resembling that? However, if I ask you 55 questions on gun control and you answer "YES to more gun control, please" everytime, then I am going to be a little skeptical when you claim not to be 100% in favor of it.

The guy just voted on March 2, 2004 for a bill that would allow the Attorney General to ban any centerfire rifle ammunition he wanted to ban by bureaucratic directive. If that is only 98% anti-gun and anti-hunting vs. 100% anti-gun and anti-hunting, then let's just say that the distinction is too small to interest me.

rock jock

July 14, 2004, 05:38 PM

Allright Ransom, you win. We can't prove that Kerry believes in a total gun ban. That's true. But what we can prove by logical conclusion is that he believes in restricting the possession and transfer of firearms to such a degree as to make our RKBA essentially void. Keep in mind that the Brits can still own guns, as long as they are .22 rifles that are kept at the local police station. One can say, based on this fact, that the English still enjoy RKBA. Objectively, though, this is complete nonsense. I think it is pretty obvious that you know this, but would rather paint Kerry as a moderate gunowner that wants reasonable restrictions. There is a range of what constitutes a gungrabber. Bush would be considered mild by his record; Kerry would be considered positively rabid.

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 05:48 PM

The guy just voted on March 2, 2004 for a bill that would allow the Attorney General to ban any centerfire rifle ammunition he wanted to ban by bureaucratic directive. If that is only 98% anti-gun and anti-hunting vs. 100% anti-gun and anti-hunting, then let's just say that the distinction is too small to interest me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but reading through the amedment I see the expansion of armour piercing bullets to "a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability". Now, seems to me this is more trying to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition that is specificly designed or marketed to be armour piercing. Am I missing something?

mrapathy2000

July 14, 2004, 06:14 PM

I dont know of any 30-30 ammo that is designed to be armor piercing by design. I say 30-30 because the author of the ammendment senator ted(hicup) kennedy sayed 30-30.

I dont know of any 30-30 chamber sniper rifle or assault weapon as kennedy described.

he wanted to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition which penetrates body armor. not ammo specificly designed for armor piercing but plinking and hunting. bullet proof vest are not designed to stop rifle rounds from 100 yards or 25 or 5yards.

I watched the ammendment discussed on c-span I dont need to read the bill I know the intention of the author cause I say him stake his intentions.

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 06:38 PM

he wanted to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition which penetrates body armor. not ammo specificly designed for armor piercing but plinking and hunting.

Well, he may have wanted to but this amendment wasnt going to do it. The amendment called first for the expansion of what is considered armour piercing ammo. It was to include:

"a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor"

And

"a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

So no centerfire ammo would be banned unless it was specificly designed or marketed to be "armour piercing". If a company made a round that just happened to pierce a bullet proof vest it would count since it has to either be marketed that way or it has to be designed that way. So unless winchester was setting up tests trying to make their bullets penetrate a vest they wouldnt and couldnt be banned by this amendment.

Read this part over to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber. Standard ammunition of the same caliber. That means they were to compare ammo that is designed or marketed to pierce ammo to regular ammo and then consider the ban. So all regular ammo would be left untouched.

So in reality Kerry didnt "vote to ban all centerfire ammo".

Am I wrong?

jfh

July 14, 2004, 07:04 PM

so, Ransom, you would hold that unless centerfire were designed or marketed as armor piercing, it would not be banned?

This, despite the fact that, without considering it too broad a generalization, any centerfire ammunition can penetrate a Level II vest--the generally-accepted LEO vest standard. If a centerfire cartridge is designed to certain parameters--velocity and mass, to certain ballistic standards that will humanely kill a hunted animal--and those ballistics also exceed the design parameters of a LEO vest--well, then, who is to argue that the bullet was not designed to penetrate the armor?

You must be a retired politician--or an active one, I guess. To parse this statement as saying such ammunition will NOT be banned because it hasn't been "designed or marketed" as such demonstrates a niavete I have never before seen in a shooting enthusiast.

These paragraphs are the kind of political-speak that distorts the true intent of legislation and makes it easy for politicians to change their position.

If a bill like this were to be passed in this form, it would leave it to a bureaucrat to simply declare, in politico-legal speak, something to the effect that "Despite Winchester's claim to the contrary (i.e., that they have never marketed their .30-30 ammo as armor-piercing), we find that they have in fact done so by selling it in stores that do sell such ammunition, and as such find their claim to be unsupported. Since said ammunition is in fact armor-piercing, I hereby ban it."

At that point, the slipperly slope is a cliff, over which all centerpoint rifle owners go over. Our politicians get to posture greatly while debating just what sort of buy-back plan for centerfire rifles will be offered to encourage compliance with this law. How about $100.00 for all 94s, and $75.00 for all others?

Now, all law-abiding citizens line up to the right--and the rest of us can consider that this is the point at which we become felons--to hell with it; I've lived a good life; they can come and get 'em.

The antigunners can claim that "well, this bill was already passed. We didn't mean to do that, but clearly there is not the support there to repeal it." Feinstein can then say "turn them all in--that's the law."

I think you have to seriously re-examine your analytical skills and infuse them with a more realistic view that includes assessment of the politican's character and position, as demonstrated by his voting record.

If you can honestly say, with a straight face, that a politician's history / behavior is not as important as his record, then I clearly overestimate your ability to deal with the real world.

What kind of firearms do you own, and what kind of shooting do you do?

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 07:09 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but reading through the amedment I see the expansion of armour piercing bullets to "a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability".

I can't find a single reference to .30-30 ammo anywhere in the world being marketed or designed as armor-piercing and yet Sen. Kennedy singled out that ammo by name in his speech from the Senate floor as a caliber that needs to be banned. Still, let's give him the benefit of a doubt and ignore the fact that he mentioned .30-30 as a caliber (not specific ammo) by name and said "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America."

I'll walk through the amendment language with you. Ammo that is defined as armor-piercing is:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

So any round chambered for a handgun and capable of penetrating body armor (as defined by section 926d) may be banned by the Attorney General. Thompson-Contender anyone? Unfortunately as we will see later, even some pistol caliber rounds will qualify under the definition of "body armor" that could be set by this bill.

iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

There isn't any board of appeals or due process here. The Attorney General decides these questions. Note that the term "standard ammunition of the same caliber" is defined nowhere in the bill. The "standard ammunition" is whatever the AG says is the standard. If the AG says it is designed as AP, then it is. There is no chance to appeal these decisions under this law.

As long as it penetrates body armor (as defined in section 926d), it can be banned by the AG. Now let's look at section 926d.

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

Not only does the AG have the authority to define "standard ammunition". He will also determine the standards for testing body armor.

``(2) The standards promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or centerfire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.

So not only will the AG be able to ban ammo that penetrates vests, the penetration will be based on the minimum standards for protection of law enforcement officers. Let's say the AG uses current NIJ Body Armor standards as guidelines. The minimum recommended body armor under these guidelines is a Level IIA vest. This will stop a 9mm FMJ at ~1,090 fps.

Here are some handgun rounds it won't stop - pistol ammunition that under the first section of this proposed law can be banned by the AG at any time:

Note that where it says "some", most of those rounds are FMJ. Say goodbye to cheap surplus ammo for plinking. The AG doesn't even have to argue that the bullet was "designed" or "marketed" that way with the first section. If it fits in a handgun and penetrates body armor, it's gone.

Note that practically no centerfire rifle ammo would pass this test. All of it would penetrate the vest. This means the AG only has to show two things that it:

1) Penetrated more than the undefined standard ammo
2) Was "designed" or "marketed" to have AP capability

So, the AG gets to determine: what the "standard ammo" will be, what the minimum standard for body armor will be, and what the standard will be for determining whether ammo was "designed or marketed to have AP capability". In essence, it is a big blank check to the AG to ban any type of ammo they want.

I'm also being generous here since there is absolutely nothing stopping the AG from setting a minimum standard that is even lower (Level I body armor?) than current NIJ recommendations.

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 07:16 PM

"Despite Winchester's claim to the contrary (i.e., that they have never marketed their .30-30 ammo as armor-piercing), we find that they have in fact done so by selling it in stores that do sell such ammunition, and as such find their claim to be unsupported. Since said ammunition is in fact armor-piercing, I hereby ban it."

They would have to prove Winchester marketed their ammunition as armour piercing. But lets say youre right. Lets say they lie and say they did. Then they would have to test it against other ammo of the same caliber and the winchester bullet has to be more armour piercing in order to be banned. It has to go through testing, not just the sayso of the AG.

The bottom line is the bill outlines specific situations in which an ammo can be banned. It has to either be speficily designed or marketed to be armour piercing and then it has to be more armour piercing than standard ammo of the same caliber.

The bottom line is "Kerry voted to ban all centerfire ammo" is a lie. Its kneejerk reactionist crap and its the exact same crap Moore pulls. Why is it ok when you do it but wrong when Moore does it?

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 07:23 PM

what the standard will be for determining whether ammo was "designed or marketed to have AP capability". In essence, it is a big blank check to the AG to ban any type of ammo they want.

The bottom line is the only centerfire rifle ammo this whole amendment effects are ammo that is designed or marketed to be AP. Tell me how that effect any ammo unless it says AP on the box or the manufacturer designed it to be AP?

The AG cant just arbitrarily say something is "designed to be AP" unless it actually is. That means it had to undergo AP testing during manufacturing or something to set it aside from standard ammo of the same caliber.

Cacique500

July 14, 2004, 07:29 PM

http://www.1911pistolgrips.com/img/miscwebpics/troll.jpeg

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 07:29 PM

Then they would have to test it against other ammo of the same caliber and the winchester bullet has to be more armour piercing in order to be banned.

1) Only if it doesn't fit in a handgun
2) the "standard ammo of the same caliber" isn't defined by the bill. The "standard" could be a Simunitions marker round if that is what the AG decides to do because the bill invests him with total authority.

It has to either be speficily designed or marketed to be armour piercing and then it has to be more armour piercing than standard ammo of the same caliber.

All of the definitions and standards you cite as protection are defined by a single man who is a bureaucratic political appointee. Want to see how those can change?

Under Reagan, importation of foreign surplus semi-automatic rifles is legal. FALs, AK47s, Uzis, are all on the market.

Under Bush I, all of those things are now illegal. Congress did not pass any law to make it so, the Secretary of the Treasury exercised the authority granted by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to determine whether imported guns had "suitable sporting purposes". Under Reagan = OK, 4yrs later - gone.

Under Bush I, the Street Sweeper shotgun was just another shotgun with a revolving cylinder instead of a tube fed magazine. It fired the same rounds as the trap gun Kerry uses in his photo ops. Under Clinton it was banned - the Secretary of the Treasury used the authority granted to him by the 1934 National Firearm Act to regulate anything with a bore of greater than 0.50" by declaring it a "Destructive Device".

Owning one is now a federal felony based on a reinterpretation of existing law by a single man.

Under Bush I, importation of foreign semi-auto parts into the U.S. is OK - under Clinton it is verboten - Under Bush II it is OK again. All cases of bureaucrats redefining vague statutes to suit the whims of their employer.

The AG cant just arbitrarily say something is "designed to be AP" unless it actually is.

Yes, he can - because there is nothing in the law defining that term. The AG can set it to mean whatever he wants it to mean and if you don't like it you can take him to court and hope for the best - see my examples above (none of which were overturned in court by the way).

jfh

July 14, 2004, 07:30 PM

shows that this kind of law functions as a template: the NEXT time there is some firearms incident that incites public uproar, all that the politicians have to do is to direct that firearms that now become illegal are those whose power exceeds that of the "most recent weapon used," as it were.

And, since this nut in the latest tragedy used a .22LR, then the standards shall be revised to limit all ammunition and firearms available to the public to be less destructive than a .22 short.

Tell me, Ransom, at what level do you define the limitations of regulation for effective ownership and use of firearms?

Is it when you can keep your .30-30, but it is locked at the local police armory and only available to you two days before hunting season begins?

Is it when your Perazzi O/U is subject to a buy-back, because a prominent politician's wife just used it to kill her husband?

Is it when John Kerry changes his mind and says. "I'm not a hunter anymore; I've decided I don't like killing things." He then joins with the majority of Senators in drafting a bill that directs the AG to define all illegal firearms and ammunition as that having more power than a .22 short. The President has indicated he will sign such a bill--after all, the public is demanding it, and we have to do it for the safety of the public. And, the AG has indicated he will promptly rewrite the regulations and commence enforcing this bill in 90 days.

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 07:38 PM

Tell me, Ransom, at what level do you define the limitations of regulation for effective ownership and use of firearms?

I dont think there should be any limitations to firearm ownership. I own and carry and shoot and I'm a steadfast supporter of the 2nd amendment.

I dont support this bill, nor do I support Kerry's views on gun ownership.

I'm just looking for the truth. The claim was made that John Kerry voted for the banning of all centerfire rifle ammunition. Now, the bill sets fairly strict standards for what centerfire rifle ammo can be banned. It only effects rifle ammo that is "designed or marketed to be AP". That isnt all centerfire rifle ammo. So that claim is incorrect.

By assuming what the man believes. Which is wrong. Yes, he beleives in gun control, but that doesnt mean he believe in outlawing all firearms and hunting. If you want to believe that its your buisness, I'm just telling you you're wrong and would rather stereotype someone based on what he believes. shrug."

When I referred to spades, I was talking about you, not Kerry.

Have a nice life.

jefnvk

July 14, 2004, 07:42 PM

He's either too ignorant or too dumb to understand. Or maybe he sees his mistake, and is too embarassed because he is too far in to back out gracefully. The point is, ANY ammo deemed able to penetrate a police vest can be banned at any time. The police I know wear vests that are probably incapable of stopping a 9mm or a .45 at 5 yards. A .30-30 is not quite on the top of the power scale as far as rifles go. Who's to say, for example, that an 8mm FMJ isn't armor piercing. Never tried shooting through metal with it, but I have put it through over a foot of wood. And FMJ is quite often marketed as armor-piercing at gun shows and such, so there is a prime example.

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 07:46 PM

The point is, ANY ammo deemed able to penetrate a police vest can be banned at any time.

But according to this bill it must either be "designed or marketed" as armour piercing to even be tested. And even then its tested agianst another bullet of the same caliber and it has to be more armour piercing than the standard.

So is the argument that the AG could be completely corrupt and lie and falisfy the fact that something is designed to be AP when it isnt?

R.H. Lee

July 14, 2004, 07:49 PM

Yes, he beleives in gun control, but that doesnt mean he believe in outlawing all firearms and hunting.

That statement contradicts itself. Gun control IS outlawing firearms. Since hunting is done with firearms, it would also be outlawed. Besides which hunting has NOTHING to do with 2A.

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 07:52 PM

The bottom line is the only centerfire rifle ammo this whole amendment effects are ammo that is designed or marketed to be AP.

Or any centerfire rifle ammo that is used in a handgun. Do you know what a Thompson Contender is?

Tell me how that effect any ammo unless it says AP on the box or the manufacturer designed it to be AP?

Well, in addition to the examples I have given above where definitions were changed to suit the current administration, let's look at some marketing for common hunting ammo. Here is a website advertising Lapua hunting bullets (http://www.lapua.com/hunting.html)

"the Naturalis retains nearly 100% of its weight even in bone hits – an important advantage because a higher residual weight necessarily correlates with a more powerful shock effect, improved penetration and less meat loss."

"Mega - superb penetration and bullet expansion"

"This bullet is at its best in the field and its penetration is matched by its quadruple expansion on impact"

Now how easy would it be for the same Administration that tried to use HUD to sue S&W into submission to argue that this is marketing a bullet with AP capability - especially when several of those bullets would slice through even the heaviest vest like a hot knife through butter?

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 07:52 PM

That statement contradicts itself. Gun control IS outlawing firearms. Since hunting is done with firearms, it would also be outlawed. Besides which hunting has NOTHING to do with 2A.

Read what you quoted. I said all firearms, duder.

Ransom

July 14, 2004, 07:55 PM

Now how easy would it be for the same Administration that tried to use HUD to sue S&W into submission to argue that this is marketing a bullet with AP capability - especially when several of those bullets would slice through even the heaviest vest like a hot knife through butter?

There is a key word left out of all of those. Guess which it is. Even then if you tested the same bullets(same caliber and so forth) would one be considered to be more armour piercing than the other)?

edit: Either way the bottom line is the point "Kerry voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammo" is false. So I've made my argument and I'm happy with it. I'm done.

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 08:00 PM

So is the argument that the AG could be completely corrupt and lie and falisfy the fact that something is designed to be AP when it isnt?

Well, you tell me. I've given examples of how one SecTreas determines a rifle has "suitable sporting purpose" and the next determines it doesn't. Nothing changed in the law and both cited the same law for their authority.

One determines a gun is just a shotgun, the next determines it is a "Destructive Device" on par with automatic cannons, grenade launchers and missiles.

There is no shortage of examples of how different bureaucrats working for different administrations interpret statutes differently, yet you seem to feel this isn't a serious threat despite the vague and broad language granting a LOT of power to the AG here.

Bartholomew Roberts

July 14, 2004, 08:10 PM

Even then if you tested the same bullets(same caliber and so forth) would one be considered to be more armour piercing than the other)?

Of course - a ballistic tip would penetrate less than a softpoint which would penetrate less than an FMJ which would penetrate less than a bonded core bullet or a copper solid. There are a whole range of bullet types in every caliber and performance varies wildly based on what their designed for. The same design that lets you break an elk's shoulder at 300yds is also going to let you zip right through very heavy vests.

Was it "Designed to be armor-piercing"? Well, it pierces the heaviest level of body armor offered and it was designed to penetrate deeply wasn't it?

Either way the bottom line is the point "Kerry voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammo" is false. So I've made my argument and I'm happy with it. I'm done.

You also keep neglecting all of the handgun ammo that would have been banned by this bill. Is that of no consequence to legitimate gun owners?

Kerry voted for a bill which could easily be used to ban all centerfire ammo and which the author of the bill expressly said on the Senate floor was for the purpose of banning the most common hunting rifle caliber used in the U.S. That is a fact. If you want to argue the 98% vs. 100% distinction again, feel free but don't expect a warm reception from most gun owners over that difference.

Ieyasu

July 15, 2004, 10:40 PM

Ransom,

You've probably moved on, but here goes anyways...

Ransom wrote:
Either way the bottom line is the point "Kerry voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammo" is false. So I've made my argument and I'm happy with it. I'm done.

I'm glad you're happy but you're mistaken. Your response ignored Bartholomew Robert's question:
Or any centerfire rifle ammo that is used in a handgun. Do you know what a Thompson Contender is?
Perhaps you don't know what a Thompson Contender is. (It's a pistol).

From the proposed bill:

''(iii) a projectile that may be used in a
handgun and that the Attorney General determines,
pursuant to section 926(d), to be
capable of penetrating body armor;"

What the above means is that any ammunition that may be used in a handgun, REGARDLESS of whether it was designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, authorizes the AG to ban it.

I've seen barrels, in the following calibers, offered for the Thompson Contender: 223, 22-250, .243, 25-06, .270 WIN, .380, 7mm-08, and 30-06.

Oh, and I almost forgot, the 30-30.

Sure, that's not ALL centerfire rifle ammo, but that isn't what you meant, is it? (Rhetorical question.)

Ransom also wrote:
In fact, I think when it comes to firearms Bush and Kerry are pretty much one the exact same level.

Hopefully after reading the evidence that other posters have left here, you no longer believe that statement to be accurate. Two examples other posters mentioned: Bush signed shall-issue CCW legislation as governor of Texas, and Bush would sign legislation granting gun manufacturers immunity from frivolous lawsuits. Kerry would veto such legislation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Read about some betrayal in Wisconsin" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!